6 comments:

Mr. Pink’s Smart Alec bumptiousness and unwarranted, acutely exaggerated intensity is reminiscent of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. He may be smart, but his style evokes a degree of anxiety akin to being trapped in a room with a steadily decreasing supply of oxygen.

Why must people of Mr. Pink’s obnoxious ilk always feel compelled to shout –– to jump down the throat of each member of their audience –– and to jerk themselves around for all the world like a monkey on a stick?

His message may be worth sharing, but HE is absolutely the WRONG person to convey it.

In contrast your friend Slavoj Zizek may be guilty at times of extreme prolixity in the expression of maddeningly cryptic perceptions while speaking with a dreadful lateral lisp, BUT there is an aura of warmth and heartfelt sincerity about him that appeals, even as you wonder what the hell he could be driving at.

Zizek may not intentionally project this image, but he's rather like a dear old Teddy Bear given you by loving parents in childhood. Somehow, you instinctively want to hug him.

Mr. Pink and Mr. Jobs have all the appeal of large, hovering birds of prey.

I'd heard other's present the findings of these "detrimental profit motive" arguments before, but Pink was the first to offer clues as to "why" it mucks things up... a kind of "premature focusing" that occurs and narrows or precludes certain "possibilities"/ limits consideration of a broader set of available options (the box either full or emptied of tacks) in the solution of the problem.

And Mr. Job's argument as to "why" the need also exists to "narrow" the focus... in order to get things done. We can't "gaze at our navels" all day. At some point, a "profit" must be made... even if our resulting solution is later determined to be sub-optimal.

Both men stand at a "critical distance" to opposite ends of the same argument.... Ecclesiastes 3.

Links

On Redemption

To redeem the past and to transform every ‘It was’ into an ‘I willed it thus!’ – that alone I call redemption!

Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

->

Andrei Tarkovsky

“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it."